What is it about alpha centauri?

MaxP779

MaxP779

MaxP779

Associate
Joined
2 Mar 2009
Posts
1,034
Location
Glasgow
The civ threads about the civ IV/V deal got me thinking, why is it i like alpha centauri so much better than civilization? I cant put my finger on it tbh.

In civ games i have trouble caring who im next to or who im friends/allies with or really connecting with any of the AI civs at all whereas in alpha centauri theres only 7 of them but you know whos going to be a PITA right off that bat (looking at you Miriam!) and who you can potentially be friends with even by their first message. Everyone in civ IV seems to treat you with hostility and insult you to some degree, the alpha centauri civs dont do that, they dont behave generically either.

Also i found civ games to be... messier... i know my fusion laser infantry in alpha centauri will win vs laser infantry as they are more advanced, its obvious from the UI its more advanced whereas in civ i got my swordsman, enemy has war camel or whatever... who knows what the outcome is. Plus alpha centauri seemed to have better overall unit types, copters for example are amazing, needlejets are great too, not to mention the mix n match make your own unit system they have! You want a hovertank and a piddly machine gun? Go for it, the game even anticipates weird combinations like this by calling the unit a "scout tank", for the record machine guns are crap in alpha centauri. The combat system makes a lot more sense too.

Any thoughts? Maybe its the sci-fi nature of it i like best.
 
Customisable units, better social policy tables, better strategy paths - building up your cities for example is much more enjoyable in SMAC than it is in any Civ game. Also the AI is really decent.

Alpha Centauri was the perfect Civ game for me, as was Civ II.

Civ II and SMAC were both designed by Brian Reynolds. Civ 3, 4 and 5 were designed by other people. I found 3 to be completely rubbish, 4 to be great, and 5 is just ok, but nowhere near as bad as I thought Civ 3 was.
 
There's a few factors certainly. First, I prefer the philosophical stances of the leaders. Each leader represents an ideal and has weaknesses and strengths which are appropriate. This for me gives much greater meaning to the interactions between nations than what civ offers.

Then there's the balance. It just did everything perfectly. peaceful building, diplomacy, tech, and conquest are all equally viable. Players can adopt a dense city sprawl or a more spaced out empires. You can make anything work, which really helps to create a depth to gameplay.

Finally, the space setting is not something which either attracted me or put me off, but it's different to the other games in the genre and that helps to make it seem fresh, even years after it was released.
 
Overslop said:
I'd be amazed if there's never a sequel.
Click to expand...

Firaxis want to make a sequel, but EA own the rights.

I just hope that if they ever do make a sequel, it remains as good as the original was.

FoxEye said:
+
Factions play very differently.
Click to expand...

I forgot about that. I read a strategy article for playing a builder strategy as Santiago. My first reaction would have been that building with her would be difficult because she gets an industry penalty to balance her super powerful military, but then I understood how it worked -

You settle bases and build peacefully like with any other civ, except you will be 10% slower, and you use Democratic + Planned + Knowledge. You end up with +4 growth, 0 Industry, +1 efficiency, +2 research, +2 morale, +1 police. The drawback is that you miss out on the +2 industry boost that others can get for building from running planned + wealth, but you have extra police to stamp out some drones, and the superb morale boost makes it stupidly easy to defend yourself against enemies and mindworms and kill any opponent dumb enough to attack Santiago. You can also swap between planned + free market depending on whether you need cash or the industry boost.

Its very good in multiplayer, because attacking a human playing the Spartans is asking for a death penalty, especially if they are building up lots of bases and have lots of production to quickly field a vast army. In single player, you will be nowhere near as weak as other leaders are when going builder, and you will get through the tech tree much faster than either Yang or Miriam (the other warmonger factions) can, while still having the most powerful military.

If you need to tech a bit faster, you can simply send out a load of probe teams. If whoever you steal tech from decides to declare war on you, lol you are Santiago. Go crush.
 
Last edited:
SMAC pooped from a great height over all Civ games. Whilst CivII was relatively enjoyable nothing was as customisable, perfectly balanced or just down right unique as SMAC. To this day I can still pick up SMAC and have a fantastically enjoyable game. I would rate it as one of my personal best games ever.

I always played as Deidre. Quick pop growth and capturing Mind Worms. Build up massive armies of mind worms and you generally won over most normal units :) oh good times :) will be playing when I'm next home me thinks :D
 
Deidre + Mind worms = ownage.

She cant use free market though which a really huge drawback, but she can have lots more bases with the +2 efficiency.

If you have the expansion though, Aki Zeta 5 poops all over Deidre and Zacharov. +2 efficiency, +2 research, and can use free market. She can pick up the most energy credits and labs, maybe except for morgan, but her drawback is a mere -1 growth which is canceled out with Democratic + children's creches.

Also, Morgan used well can out tech Zacharov, but he is very difficult to play with his crippled base sizes and -1 support (Democracy = crippled minerals output for Morgan, but you can use his extra energy credits to buy stuff, and prioritize getting clean reactors on all your units).
 
Last edited:
bhavv said:
Deidre + Mind worms = ownage.

She cant use free market though which a really huge drawback, but she can have lots more bases with the +2 efficiency.

If you have the expansion though, Aki Zeta 5 poops all over Deidre and Zacharov. +2 efficiency, +2 research, and can use free market. She can pick up the most energy credits and labs, maybe except for morgan, but her drawback is a mere -1 growth which is canceled out with Democratic + children's creches.

Also, Morgan used well can out tech Zacharov, but he is very difficult to play with his crippled base sizes and -1 support (Democracy = crippled minerals output for Morgan, but you can use his extra energy credits to buy stuff, and prioritize getting clean reactors on all your units).
Click to expand...

Aki's bases look the best as well :p

Yeah out of all the games ive played ive only seen morgan dominate in a couple, he usually gets eaten by the hive or the spartans or miriam or the native mindworms :(
 
MaxP779 said:
The civ threads about the civ IV/V deal got me thinking, why is it i like alpha centauri so much better than civilization? I cant put my finger on it tbh.

In civ games i have trouble caring who im next to or who im friends/allies with or really connecting with any of the AI civs at all whereas in alpha centauri theres only 7 of them but you know whos going to be a PITA right off that bat.
Click to expand...

Its why the original Masters of Orion was better than its sequels and most, if not all space 4x4s since.
 
I thought AC's presentation went a long way, as none of the cartoony leaders.

I’m also not a fan Civ using leaders and technology from such a vast time frame and throwing them all against each other. Especially when medieval and earlier units start taking out machine gun positions.
 
MaxP779 said:
Aki's bases look the best as well :p

Yeah out of all the games ive played ive only seen morgan dominate in a couple, he usually gets eaten by the hive or the spartans or miriam or the native mindworms :(
Click to expand...

The AI cant handle his -3 base population limit. and -1 support negatives. A human player can :).

+1 econ plus the +1 commerce rate combined with free market and wealth gives you the most energy credits possible in the game. The hab complex limit is a blessing on higher difficultly levels to stop your bases growing too large without adequate drone facilities in place. Then theres a wonder which increases base size limit by 2 which completely minimizes Morgan's drawback after you have hab complex's in place.

If you need to go to war, you can afford to buy a lot more military units than anyone else. Given enough time to expand, you can easily corner the energy market before you are even halfway through the tech tree. During war time, you switch out of Free Market to green. Staying in Wealth still gives you +2 economy for +1 energy per square, and the +2 efficiency from Green allows you to capture as much energy as possible.

No one else can successfully afford a war with +2 economy other than Morgan. You can also use his excess cash flow for lots of probe team fun, its often worth using Fundamentalist / Green / Wealth during war time as Morgan, and Democratic / Free Market / Wealth during peacetime.

Staying in Democratic + Free Market while an AI is attacking you will severly hurt. -5 police and -3 support is not a good thing to have during war, neither is the -3 planet if you get attacked by Deidre or Cha Dawn. I usually try my best to stay at peace with everyone as Morgan to be able to stay in Free Market, and make use of the commerce bonus. You give energy credit gifts to every AI until they sign peace treaties, and Morgans income per turn ends up astronomically high.

The AI absolutely owns when playing as the Hive or Miriam because all they do is unit spam. An AI Santiago usually gets trounced by either the Hive or Miriam because similarly to Morgans support loss, Santiago's -1 Industry is too hard a hit for the AI to cope with. For a human player though, Santiago is the fastest teching war faction, and the only one that can keep up with Morgan / Deidre and Aki Zeta. You'll never out tech Zacharov on higher difficulties without probe teams. Look for him asap and send out probe teams, and make sure you always deny him from building the Hunter Seeker Algorithm.

Its never worth playing as Zacharov yourself because he is actually a lot worse than Aki Zeta and Morgan for economy and gets too many drones. He is a great pick for newcomers to the game on lower difficulties, but on the top two difficulties he is completely useless.

Miriam has absolutely no research, and Yang has absolutely no energy, I find them both impossible to play as.
 
Last edited:
After reading bhavv’s strategies I’m glad I never tried a game against a human opponent. Seems too much complexity if playing to win.

In my games all I did was pander to the AI women, except for the ginger haired religious one.
 
Bane said:
After reading bhavv’s strategies I’m glad I never tried a game against a human opponent. Seems too much complexity if playing to win.

In my games all I did was pander to the AI women, except for the ginger haired religious one.
Click to expand...

Its not complex, its easy :o
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom